- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alabama cops shoots man exiting his vehicle with his wallet
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he clearly overreacted. that likely eliminates intent issues
that doesn't mean he's absolved from potential criminal liability
It doesn't inherently absolve him from criminal liability, but there isn't a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. The video doesn't show malice on the part of the officer, and it could be used to show that the officer had no idea what the black object was in the guys hand.
1
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:47 am to cas4t
quote:it's obvious that he thought the wallet was a threat to his life.
Idk, the guy just had a wallet in his hand.
Maybe the officer was all hopped up on mountain dew. Maybe he'd just had an argument with his wife and was on edge. Maybe he's a veteran and PTSD kicked in. We don't know. What we do know is that the cop wrongfully shot a man.
next time, carry money clips, boys...no wallet needed.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:47 am to ell_13
quote:
No shite?
Your only proof of that is that the cop shot.
What more evidence do you need. I said from the beginning he should have stayed in the car. It took this long for us to agree?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:48 am to cas4t
quote:
apparently the logical thing to do is assume a cop is going to shoot you over holding your wallet.
You're not very good at this.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to Pecker
quote:
but there isn't a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
do you know what these words mean? and if you do, why are you using them in the wrong sphere?
quote:
The video doesn't show malice on the part of the officer,
and that's irrelevant if we're not relying on criminal actions that require intent
gross negligence is typically the standard and malice is not necessary
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to Pecker
quote:
said from the beginning he should have stayed in the car
You aren't even right about that
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to Pecker
quote:Because I don't think he should have stayed in his car. Just like I don't think people killed by drunk drivers should just stay home.
I said from the beginning he should have stayed in the car. It took this long for us to agree?
This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 11:50 am
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to ell_13
quote:
I've refuted all of your retardness. The cop argued that he reasonably feared for his life. That's not up for debate here.
You know what else is not up for debate? That a judge ruled the shooting justified.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to ell_13
quote:
For the last three years, Davidson was hoping to seek justice against the man who shot him for no reason. However, as is the case in so many other police shootings, the shooting was found to be justified — because the cop expressed a justifiable reason to fear for his life
I love how the cops get to investigate themselves and just so happen to find themselves innocent like 98% of the time.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:49 am to cas4t
quote:
Idk, the guy just had a wallet in his hand.
So make a reasonable assumption.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:50 am to Pecker
OJ got off too.
Your point?
Your point?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:50 am to ell_13
quote:
Because I don't think he should have stayed in his car.
You think the odds of his being shot inside the car are the same as his exiting the vehicle?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do you know what these words mean? and if you do, why are you using them in the wrong sphere?
quote:
and that's irrelevant if we're not relying on criminal actions that require intent
gross negligence is typically the standard and malice is not necessary
SFP is really just shooting down all of these arguments.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:50 am to Rebelgator
quote:
OJ got off too.
Your point?
Do you think the circumstances of that case are equivalent to what we have here?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:51 am to Pecker
quote:I believe at the time he exited the car, he thought the odds of him being shot were 0% either way.
You think the odds of his being shot inside the car are the same as his exiting the vehicle?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am to Pecker
quote:Are you assuming that judges are always right?
You know what else is not up for debate? That a judge ruled the shooting justified.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am to Pecker
quote:I thought OJ was not innocent and I think the cop was not justified to shoot the guy, so yea, lots of similarities.
Do you think the circumstances of that case are equivalent to what we have here?
This post was edited on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am to shel311
quote:
Did that not happen in the OP?
Not what I was commenting on. The poster I responded to thinks that happens with every cop interaction, with a history of being a troll.
As far as the OP goes, obviously a terrible shoot and the cop should've been prosecuted and in prison.
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am to Pecker
quote:My odds of dying today are much less if I stay home instead of drive to work but I still do it.
You think the odds of his being shot inside the car are the same as his exiting the vehicle?
Posted on 3/13/17 at 11:52 am to Rebelgator
quote:
Your point?
He doesn't have one. He thinks he is a debate professional.
I'm just sitting back and watching Slo Flo shred his ignorant arse.
Page 24 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News